Final Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Amber Valley in Derbyshire

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR AMBER VALLEY IN DERBYSHIRE

Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

November 1998

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for Amber Valley in Derbyshire.

Members of the Commission are:

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman)

Helena Shovelton (Deputy Chairman)

Peter Brokenshire

Professor Michael Clarke

Pamela Gordon

Robin Gray

Robert Hughes

Barbara Stephens (Chief Executive)

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Local Government Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G.

This report is printed on recycled paper. ii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CONTENTS

page LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE v

SUMMARY vii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 3

3 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 7

4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 9

5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 11

6 NEXT STEPS 25

APPENDIX

A Final Recommendations for Amber Valley in Derbyshire: Detailed Mapping 27

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND iii iv LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Local Government Commission for England

24 November 1998

Dear Secretary of State

On 2 December 1997 the Commission began a periodic electoral review of Amber Valley under the Local Government Act 1992. We published our draft recommendations in June 1998 and undertook a ten-week period of consultation.

We have now prepared our final recommendations in the light of the consultation, and have confirmed our draft recommendations in full. This report sets out our final recommendations for changes to electoral arrangements in Amber Valley.

We recommend that Amber Valley Borough Council should be served by 45 councillors representing 23 wards, and that changes should be made to ward boundaries in order to improve electoral equality, having regard to the statutory criteria. We recommend that the Council should continue to hold elections by thirds.

We note that you have now set out in the White Paper Modern Local Government - In Touch with the People (Cm 4014, HMSO) legislative proposals for a number of changes to local authority electoral arrangements. However, until such time as that new legislation is in place we are obliged to conduct our work in accordance with current legislation, and to continue our current approach to periodic electoral reviews.

I would like to thank members and officers of the Borough Council and other local people who have contributed to the review. Their co-operation and assistance have been very much appreciated by Commissioners and staff.

Yours sincerely

PROFESSOR MALCOLM GRANT Chairman

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND v vi LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND SUMMARY

The Commission began a review of Amber Valley on 2 December 1997. We published our draft ● In all 23 wards, the number of electors per recommendations for electoral arrangements on 30 councillor would vary by no more than 10 June 1998, after which we undertook a ten-week per cent from the borough average initially. period of consultation. ● By 2002 the number of electors per councillor is forecast to vary by no more ● This report summarises the representations than 10 per cent from the average in all but we received during consultation on our draft one ward. recommendations, and offers our final recommendations to the Secretary of State. Recommendations are also made for changes to parish and town council electoral arrangements We found that the existing electoral arrangements which provide for: provide unequal representation of electors in Amber Valley because: ● revised warding arrangements for the parish of Crich; ● in 14 of the 25 wards, the number of electors represented by each councillor varies ● revised warding arrangements for the towns by more than 10 per cent from the average of Belper, Heanor & Loscoe and Ripley. for the borough, and four wards vary by more than 20 per cent from the average; ● by 2002 electoral equality is not expected to All further correspondence on these improve, with the number of electors per recommendations and the matters discussed councillor forecast to vary by more than 10 in this report should be addressed to the per cent from the average in 16 wards, and Secretary of State for the Environment, by more than 20 per cent in five wards. Transport and the Regions, who will not make an order implementing the Our main final recommendations for future Commission’s recommendations before 4 electoral arrangements (Figure 1 and paragraph January 1999: 82) are that: The Secretary of State ● Amber Valley Borough Council should be Department of the Environment, served by 45 councillors, two more than at Transport and the Regions present; Local Government Review Eland House ● there should be 23 wards, two less than at Bressenden Place present; London SW1E 5DU ● the boundaries of 14 of the existing wards should be modified, while 11 wards should retain their existing boundaries; ● elections should continue to take place by thirds.

These recommendations seek to ensure that the number of electors represented by each borough councillor is as nearly as possible the same, having regard to local circumstances.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND vii Figure 1: The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary

Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

1 Aldercar 2 Unchanged (the parish of Aldercar Map 2 & Langley Mill)

2 Alfreton 3 Alfreton East ward; Alfreton West ward Map 2

3 Alport 1 Unchanged (the parishes of Alderwasley, Map 2 Ashleyhay, Dethick Lea & Holloway, Hazelwood, Idridgehay & Alton and Shottle & Postern)

4 Belper Central 2 Belper East ward (part); Belper North Map 2 and ward (part); Belper South ward (part) large map

5 Belper East 2 Belper East ward (part) Map 2 and large map

6 Belper North 2 Belper North ward (part); Belper Map 2 and South ward (part) large map

7 Belper South 2 Belper East ward (part); Belper Map 2 and South ward (part) large map

8 Codnor & 2 Codnor ward (the Codnor parish ward Map 2 and Waingroves of Codnor parish); Heanor & Loscoe large map ward (part – the Crosshill & East parish ward of Codnor parish); Ripley ward (part – the proposed Waingroves parish ward of Ripley parish)

9 Crich 1 Unchanged (the Crich parish ward Map 2 of Crich parish)

10 Duffield 2 Unchanged (the parish of Duffield) Map 2

11 Heage & Ambergate 2 Unchanged (the Heage and Ambergate Map 2 and parish wards of Ripley parish) large map

12 Heanor East 2 Heanor East ward (part) Map 2 and large map

13 Heanor West 2 Heanor East ward (part); Heanor Map 2 and West ward (part) large map

14 Horsley & 2 Denby & Horsley Woodhouse ward Map 2 Shipley Park (part – the parish of Horsley Woodhouse); Holbrook & Horsley ward (part – the parish of Horsley); Shipley Park ward (the parishes of Mapperley, Smalley and Shipley)

viii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 1 (continued): The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary

Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

15 Kilburn, 3 Denby & Horsley Woodhouse ward Map 2 Denby & Holbrook (part – the parish of Denby); Holbrook & Horsley ward (part – the parish of Holbrook); Kilburn ward (the parish of Kilburn)

16 Loscoe 2 Heanor & Loscoe ward (part – the Map 2 and Heanor & Loscoe parish ward of large map Heanor & Loscoe parish); Heanor West ward (part)

17 Riddings 2 Unchanged (the parish of Ironville Map 2 and the unparished area of Riddings)

18 Ripley 3 Ripley ward (part – the North and Map 2 and Butterley parish wards of Ripley parish large map and the East parish ward of Ripley parish as amended)

19 Ripley & Marehay 2 Unchanged (the Central, Elms and Map 2 and Marehay parish wards of Ripley parish) large map

20 Somercotes 2 Unchanged (the parish of Somercotes) Map 2

21 South West Parishes 1 Unchanged (the parishes of Kedleston, Map 2 Kirk Langley, Mackworth, Quarndon, Ravensdale Park, Turnditch, Weston Underwood and Windley)

22 Swanwick 2 Unchanged (the parish of Swanwick) Map 2

23 Wingfield 1 Unchanged (the parishes of Pentrich Map 2 and South Wingfield and the Fritchley parish ward of Crich parish)

Note: Map 2 and the large map inserted at the back of this report illustrate the proposed wards outlined above.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND ix x LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1. INTRODUCTION

1 This report contains our final recommendations 5 Stage Three began on 30 June 1998 with the on the electoral arrangements for the borough of publication of our report, Draft Recommendations Amber Valley in Derbyshire. We have now on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Amber reviewed all the districts in Derbyshire as part of Valley in Derbyshire, and ended on 7 September our programme of periodic electoral reviews of all 1998. Comments were sought on our preliminary principal local authority areas in England. conclusions. Finally, during Stage Four we reconsidered our draft recommendations in the 2 In undertaking these reviews, we have had light of the Stage Three consultation and now regard to: publish our final recommendations.

● the statutory criteria contained in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992; ● the Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral Arrangements contained in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972.

3 We have also had regard to our Guidance and Procedural Advice for Local Authorities and Other Interested Parties (published in March 1996, supplemented in September 1996 and updated in March 1998), which sets out our approach to the reviews.

4 This review was in four stages. Stage One began on 2 December 1997, when we wrote to Amber Valley Borough Council inviting proposals for future electoral arrangements. Our letter was copied to Derbyshire County Council, the Derbyshire Police Authority, the local authority associations, the Derbyshire Association of Local Councils, parish and town councils in the borough, Members of Parliament and the Member of the European Parliament with constituency interests in the borough, and the headquarters of the main political parties. At the start of the review and following publication of our draft recommendations, we published notices in the local press, issued a press release and invited the Council to publicise the review more widely. The closing date for receipt of representations was 9 March 1998. At Stage Two we considered all the representations received during Stage One and prepared our draft recommendations.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1 2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 2. CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

6 The borough of Amber Valley is located in 20 per cent. The worst imbalance is in Kilburn eastern Derbyshire, to the north of Derby and to ward in which the number of electors per the west of Nottinghamshire. With the exception councillor is 48 per cent above the borough of Derby, Amber Valley is the largest borough in average. the county in terms of population with over 110,000 residents and has an area of some 26,500 hectares. The majority of the population live in the centre or east of the borough in the towns of Alfreton, Belper, Heanor & Loscoe and Ripley. The eastern part of the borough also contains the majority of the local industrial land, especially important to the borough since the closure of local coal mines. The western part of the borough, which borders the Derbyshire Dales, is mainly rural in character. Amber Valley is the only authority in Derbyshire apart from Derby City to hold elections by thirds and is almost entirely parished with 33 parish or town councils.

7 To compare levels of electoral inequality between wards, we calculated the extent to which the number of electors per councillor in each ward (the councillor:elector ratio) varies from the borough average in percentage terms. In the text which follows, this calculation may also be described using the shorthand term ‘electoral variance’.

8 The electorate of the borough (February 1997) is 91,433. The Council presently has 43 councillors who are elected from 25 wards (Map 1 and Figure 2). Two wards are represented by three councillors, fourteen wards elect two councillors each, while the remaining nine are single-member wards.

9 At present, each councillor represents an average of 2,126 electors, which the Borough Council forecasts would increase to 2,191 by the year 2002 if the present number of councillors is maintained. However, due to demographic and other changes over the past two decades, the number of electors per councillor in 14 of the 25 wards varies by more than 10 per cent from the borough average and in four wards by more than

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 3 Figure 2: Existing Electoral Arrangements

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Aldercar 2 3,838 1,919 -10 3,840 1,920 -12

2 Alfreton East 2 2,420 1,210 -43 2,544 1,272 -42

3 Alfreton West 2 3,940 1,970 -7 3,884 1,942 -11

4 Alport 1 2,049 2,049 -4 2,088 2,088 -5

5 Belper East 3 8,242 2,747 29 9,117 3,039 39

6 Belper North 2 3,998 1,999 -6 3,993 1,997 -9

7 Belper South 2 3,176 1,588 -25 3,222 1,611 -26

8 Codnor 1 2,372 2,372 12 2,356 2,356 8

9 Crich 1 1,831 1,831 -14 1,943 1,943 -11

10 Denby & Horsley 1 2,510 2,510 18 2,575 2,575 18 Woodhouse

11 Duffield 2 3,705 1,853 -13 3,774 1,887 -14

12 Heage & Ambergate 2 3,907 1,954 -8 3,927 1,964 -10

13 Heanor & Loscoe 2 3,827 1,914 -10 3,809 1,905 -13

14 Heanor East 2 4,711 2,356 11 4,902 2,451 12

15 Heanor West 2 4,806 2,403 13 4,939 2,470 13

16 Holbrook & Horsley 1 1,840 1,840 -13 1,851 1,851 -16

17 Kilburn 1 3,146 3,146 48 3,175 3,175 45

18 Riddings 2 4,321 2,161 2 4,511 2,256 3

19 Ripley 3 7,320 2,440 15 7,618 2,539 16

20 Ripley & Marehay 2 4,481 2,241 5 4,561 2,281 4

21 Shipley Park 1 2,510 2,510 18 2,719 2,719 24

4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 2 (continued): Existing Electoral Arrangements

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %% 22 Somercotes 2 4,392 2,196 3 4,534 2,267 3

23 South West Parishes 1 2,080 2,080 -2 2,120 2,120 -3

24 Swanwick 2 4,171 2,086 -2 4,369 2,185 0

25 Wingfield 1 1,840 1,840 -13 1,856 1,856 -15

Totals 43 91,433 --94,227 --

Averages --2,126 --2,191 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on Amber Valley Borough Council’s submission. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. For example, in 1997, electors in Alfreton East ward were relatively over-represented by 43 per cent, while electors in Belper East ward were relatively under-represented by 29 per cent. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 5 Map 1: Existing Wards in Amber Valley

6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 3. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

10 During Stage One we received representations from Amber Valley Borough Council, the West Derbyshire and Amber Valley Conservative Associations, five parish councils and three town councils. In the light of these representations and the evidence available to us, we reached preliminary conclusions which were set out in our report, Draft Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Amber Valley in Derbyshire. Our draft recommendations were partly based on the Borough Council’s scheme, which in general terms achieved improved electoral equality, providing good boundaries while having regard to the statutory criteria. However, we moved away from the Borough Council’s scheme in four areas, affecting eight wards in the south and east of the borough. In those areas we built on the West Derbyshire Conservative Association’s scheme. We proposed that:

(a) Amber Valley Borough Council should be served by 45 councillors, representing 23 wards;

(b) the boundaries of 14 of the existing wards should be modified, while 11 wards should retain their existing boundaries;

Draft Recommendation Amber Valley Borough Council should comprise 45 councillors, serving 23 wards. The Council should continue to be elected by thirds.

11 Our proposals would have resulted in significant improvements in electoral equality, with the number of electors per councillor in all wards varying by no more than 10 per cent from the borough average. By 2002 only one ward was forecast to vary by more than 10 per cent from the average (the unchanged Wingfield ward at 11 per cent).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 7 8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 4. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

12 During the consultation on our draft by three town councillors rather than four. recommendations report, twelve representations were received. A list of respondents is available on Parish and Town Councils request from the Commission. All representations may be inspected at the offices of Amber Valley 16 Three town councils and five parish councils Borough Council and the Commission. submitted representations during Stage Three. Belper Town Council fully supported the draft Amber Valley Borough recommendations regarding the Belper borough Council wards and those proposed for the Town Council. Ripley Town Council stated that it “could see the 13 The Council concurred with many of the draft logic in the proposed borough council ward of recommendations but put forward alternative Codnor & Waingroves” but could see no reason for proposals for the southern part of the borough. It some of the town council wards to be modified. proposed an unchanged Holbrook & Horsley Heanor & Loscoe Town Council supported the single-member ward, a new two-member Kilburn Borough Council’s Stage Three proposal for two & Horsley Woodhouse ward and a new two- new three-member wards to be created in the town member ward comprising the Shipley Park ward and additionally proposed alternative town council and Denby parish, although the Council ideally warding arrangements. preferred that this latter ward be subdivided into single-member wards. It also proposed the creation 17 Kilburn Parish Council supported the draft of two three-member wards for Heanor & Loscoe, recommendations insofar as they affected the although its second preference for the town was for parish. However, the parish councils of Holbrook, a modified version of our draft proposals, three Horsley, Horsley Woodhouse and Shipley all two-member wards. opposed our recommendations. Holbrook Parish Council stated a preference for retaining the 14 The Council supported (or ‘noted’) our present Holbrook & Horsley ward, although it proposals for Belper, Codnor & Waingroves, added that a possible alternative option would Ripley and Swanwick but maintained its view be to include additional electors from lower that the town of Alfreton should be represented Kilburn and Derby Road in the ward, arguing by four members (as now) rather than three that this would “even out the numerical anomaly as we proposed. whilst keeping a geographical and historic unit”. Horsley Parish Council also preferred to remain West Derbyshire part of the present Holbrook & Horsley ward and Conservative Association supported the alternative proposed by Holbrook Parish Council.

15 The West Derbyshire Conservative Association generally supported our draft recommendations 18 Horsley Woodhouse Parish Council reiterated across the borough. However, it reiterated its its preference for the parish to remain in a ward earlier concern that the Borough Council’s forecast with the neighbouring parish of Denby and argued electorate increase for the current Belper East ward that the additional councillor merited in the had been calculated by uniformly applying a southern part of Amber Valley should represent the statistical formula across polling districts and may Kilburn ward. Shipley Parish Council reaffirmed its not, therefore, produce an accurate electorate support for the Borough Council’s Stage One projection for that particular ward. The Association proposal to retain the single-member Shipley Park also proposed that each of the four suggested ward, covering the parishes of Smalley, Mapperley Belper Town Council wards should be represented and Shipley.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 9 Derbyshire County Council

19 The County Council generally supported our draft recommendations, although it proposed two three-member wards for the town of Heanor & Loscoe and an alternative warding arrangement for some of the parishes in the south of the borough. It proposed a two-member ward which would comprise Denby Village, Horsley Woodhouse and Shipley Park and a two-member Kilburn & Denby ward which would comprise most of Kilburn parish and the Bottles and Openwoodgate areas of Denby parish. It also proposed to add 171 electors from the southern part of Kilburn parish to an enlarged single-member Holbrook & Horsley ward. Other Representations

20 A further representation was received in response to our draft recommendations from a local resident. He supported our proposals regarding Duffield ward and the towns of Alfreton, Belper and Ripley, but put forward possible alternatives for the wards of Alport, Crich and Wingfield.

10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 5. ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

21 As indicated previously, our prime objective in ward. Any imbalances of 20 per cent and over considering the most appropriate electoral should arise only in the most exceptional of arrangements for Amber Valley is to achieve circumstances, and will require the strongest electoral equality, having regard to the statutory justification. criteria set out in the Local Government Act 1992 and Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act Electorate Forecasts 1972, which refers to the ratio of electors to councillors being “as nearly as may be, the same in 25 At Stage One Amber Valley Borough Council every ward of the district or borough”. submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2002, projecting an increase in the electorate of some 3 22 However, our function is not merely per cent from 91,433 to 94,227 over the five-year arithmetical. First, our recommendations are not period from 1997 to 2002. The Council estimated intended to be based solely on existing electorate rates and locations of housing development with figures, but also on assumptions as to changes in regard to structure and local plans, the expected the number and distribution of local government rate of building over the five-year period and electors likely to take place within the ensuing five assumed occupancy rates. In our draft years. Second, we must have regard to the recommendations report we accepted that this is an desirability of fixing identifiable boundaries, and to inexact science and, having given consideration to maintaining local ties which might otherwise be the forecast electorates, were satisfied that they broken. Third, we must consider the need to secure represented the best estimates that could effective and convenient local government, and reasonably be made at the time. reflect the interests and identities of local communities. 26 During Stage Three the West Derbyshire Conservative Association reiterated its Stage One 23 It is therefore impractical to design an electoral contention that the Borough Council’s projected scheme which provides for exactly the same electorate data for the existing Belper East ward number of electors per councillor in every ward of had been calculated by uniformly applying a an authority. There must be a degree of flexibility. formula across the relevant polling districts. We However, our approach, in the context of the have considered the Conservative Association’s statutory criteria, is that such flexibility must be concerns but, in view of the fact that the Borough kept to a minimum. Council confirmed to us during Stage Three that it remains content with its projected electorate 24 Our Guidance states that, while we accept that methodology (which was agreed by the County the achievement of absolute electoral equality for Council), we remain satisfied that the Borough the authority as a whole is likely to be unattainable, Council’s projections are the most appropriate we consider that, if electoral imbalances are to be available to us. kept to the minimum, such an objective should be the starting point in any review. We therefore Council Size strongly recommend that, in formulating electoral schemes, local authorities and other interested 27 Our Guidance indicates that we would normally parties should start from the standpoint of absolute expect the number of councillors serving a borough electoral equality and only then make adjustments or district council to be in the range of 30 to 60. to reflect relevant factors, such as community identity. Regard must also be had to five-year 28 Amber Valley Borough Council is at present forecasts of change in electorates. We will require served by 43 councillors. In our draft particular justification for schemes which result in, recommendations report we considered the size or retain, an imbalance of over 10 per cent in any and distribution of the electorate, the geography

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 11 and other characteristics of the area, together with electorate of 3,940 is relatively well-represented, the representations received. We concluded that the the number of electors per councillor varying from statutory criteria and the achievement of electoral the borough average by 7 per cent (11 per cent in equality would best be met by a council size of 45 2002). members. During the consultation period we did not receive any representations specifically arguing 31 The single-member Crich ward, with an against our proposed council size. However, the electorate of 1,831, comprises the Crich parish proposal by the Borough Council for the town of ward of Crich parish and currently has 14 per cent Alfreton to retain four councillors would result in a fewer than the average number of electors per council size of 46. That proposal is not acceptable councillor (11 per cent in 2002). The two-member to us (see paragraph 38 below) and therefore we Swanwick ward, which comprises the parish of are confirming our draft recommendation for a that name, has an electorate of 4,171 and varies by council size of 45 as final. 2 per cent below the average number of electors per councillor (equalling it in 2002). The single- member Wingfield ward comprises the Fritchley Electoral Arrangements parish ward of Crich parish and the parishes of Pentrich and South Wingfield and has an electorate 29 Having considered the representations received of 1,840. The number of electors per councillor is during Stage Three, we have reviewed our draft 13 per cent fewer than the borough average (15 recommendations. The following areas, based on per cent in 2002). existing wards, are considered in turn:

32 During Stage One, the Borough Council (a) Alfreton East and West, Crich, Swanwick and acknowledged the “considerable electoral inequality” Wingfield wards; in Alfreton, but preferred that no change be made (b) Aldercar, Riddings and Somercotes wards; to the existing electoral arrangements. The proposal for no change was supported by Alfreton (c) Heage & Ambergate, Ripley and Ripley & Town Council during the Borough Council’s own Marehay wards; consultation. If this proposal were not acceptable, (d) Codnor, Heanor & Loscoe, Heanor East and the Borough Council favoured the creation of a Heanor West wards; three-member ward for the whole of the town area, reducing representation in the town overall by one (e) Denby & Horsley Woodhouse, Holbrook & member. This proposal was supported by the Horsley, Kilburn and Shipley Park wards; Amber Valley and West Derbyshire Conservative (f) Belper East, North and South wards; Associations. A third option was also proposed by the Council which would retain four members for (g) Alport, Duffield and South West Parishes the area, but would involve the warding of the wards. neighbouring parish of South Wingfield and its division between two enlarged Alfreton wards. Details of our final recommendations are set out in

Figures 1 and 4 and illustrated in Map 2, Appendix 33 The Borough Council looked at two options A and the large map inserted in the back of this in relation to the Crich ward. Its preferred option report. was for no change, a proposal supported by the Amber Valley and West Derbyshire Conservative Alfreton East and West, Crich, Associations. While acknowledging that electoral Swanwick and Wingfield wards equality would not be improved, its second preference was to include the Fritchley parish ward 30 The town of Alfreton is presently divided into (containing 462 electors), which is in Crich parish two borough wards. The two-member Alfreton but presently forms part of the Wingfield borough East ward with an electorate of 2,420 is ward, in a revised Crich borough ward. substantially over-represented, the number of electors per councillor varying from the borough 34 The Borough Council’s preferred option for the average by 43 per cent (42 per cent in 2002). The wards of Swanwick and Wingfield was for no two-member Alfreton West ward with an change to the existing electoral arrangements,

12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND proposals supported by the Amber Valley and West their entirety. We also received a representation Derbyshire Conservative Associations and, during from a local resident supporting our proposal for the Borough Council’s own consultation period, Alfreton, although he proposed alternative by Pentrich and South Wingfield parish councils. arrangements for Crich and raised the possibility of However, the Borough Council also considered transferring some electors from Ripley into the alternatives which would result in the parish of Wingfield ward. The Borough Council supported Pentrich being added to Swanwick ward and South our draft recommendations in relation to the wards Wingfield parish being warded and “added” to of Crich, Swanwick and Wingfield. However, it Alfreton as discussed above. reaffirmed its preference that there should be no change to the two existing two-member wards in 35 The proposal to ward the parish of South Alfreton because “this area is identified as one of Wingfield did not appear sensible on the ground. economic and social deprivation”. The Council Officers from the Commission visited this area and submitted interesting background material about noted that the community of South Wingfield is the town to support its submission. some distance from Alfreton, while the existing Alfreton wards are contained within clearly 38 We concluded in our draft recommendations defined town boundaries. In view of this and of report that the town of Alfreton (the wards of the reasonable level of electoral equality that Alfreton East and Alfreton West) merits three would be attained in Alfreton, we adopted as our councillors in total rather than the present four and draft recommendation the alternative proposal therefore proposed the creation of a three-member put forward by the Council and supported by the ward for the town. We stated that we had carefully Amber Valley and West Derbyshire Conservative considered the Council’s case for departing from Associations, for a three-member Alfreton ward. electoral equality in Alfreton but concluded then – Under our proposals for a council size of 45 and maintain the view – that our statutory members, the number of electors per councillor in requirements would be better satisfied by replacing the three-member Alfreton ward would vary from the two present two-member wards with one the borough average by 4 per cent (2 per cent in three-member ward. While we fully acknowledge 2002). the socio-economic issues raised by the Council, we do not consider that such factors justify an 36 We also considered whether a projected electoral ‘weighting’ for the town of Alfreton. electoral variance of 11 per cent in an unchanged

Wingfield ward could be improved upon. The only 39 Given the general support for our other viable alternative option appeared to be to merge proposals in this area, and in the absence of the present Crich and Wingfield wards together substantive new evidence during Stage Three, we into a two-member ward. This possibility had confirm our draft recommendations for the attractions as it would marginally improve electoral Alfreton, Crich, Swanwick and Wingfield wards as equality (the ward would have a projected variance final. Details of parishing proposals relating to of 9 per cent) and would unite the parish of Crich Crich Parish Council are outlined at the end of this within one borough ward. However, such a ward chapter (see page 21). would be fairly large and the centres of population within it would be some distance apart. Having carefully considered the available options, we Aldercar, Riddings and adopted the Borough Council’s proposals for no Somercotes wards change to the wards of Crich, Swanwick and Wingfield. Under our proposals, the number of 40 The two-member Aldercar ward, which electors per councillor in these wards would vary comprises Aldercar & Langley Mill parish, has an from the borough average by 10 per cent, 3 per electorate of 3,838 and the number of electors per cent and 9 per cent respectively (7 per cent, 4 per councillor is presently 10 per cent below the cent and 11 per cent in 2002). borough average (12 per cent in 2002). The two- member ward of Riddings, which contains 4,321 37 During Stage Three, Derbyshire County electors, comprises the only unparished area in the Council and the West Derbyshire Conservative borough and the parish of Ironville. The number of Association endorsed our proposals for this area in electors per councillor currently varies from the

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 13 borough average by 2 per cent (3 per cent in different” to the other two Ripley ‘town’ wards and 2002). The two-member Somercotes ward, which that the A38 road provides a strong boundary comprises the parish of that name, has an electorate between the two distinctive areas. However, the of 4,392. The number of electors per councillor Council also proposed two alternatives. First, it varies from the borough average by 3 per cent both proposed the transfer of the RYY polling district initially and in 2002. from Ripley ward to Ripley & Marehay ward, although electoral equality in the two wards would 41 During Stage One, the Borough Council and not be significantly improved. Second, an the Amber Valley and West Derbyshire additional transfer of 72 electors was proposed Conservative Associations proposed no change to between the two wards but this would still result in the existing electoral arrangements of these wards. the number of electors per councillor in both wards Given the reasonable levels of electoral equality that varying by more than 10 per cent from the would result and the lack of alternative options, we borough average. Ripley Town Council, while adopted these proposals. Under a 45-member preferring no change to the existing electoral council size, the number of electors per councillor arrangements, supported the Borough Council’s in unchanged wards of Aldercar, Riddings and alternatives. Somercotes would vary from the borough average by 6 per cent, 6 per cent and 8 per cent respectively 45 The West Derbyshire Conservative Association (all 8 per cent by 2002). also proposed no change to Heage & Ambergate and Ripley & Marehay wards. However, in order 42 During Stage Three our proposals for no to improve the level of electoral equality in the change to these wards received support from the Ripley ward, the Association proposed that the Borough Council, Derbyshire County Council and ‘Waingroves’ area of Ripley (the RYW and RYZ the West Derbyshire Conservative Association; no polling districts) be placed with the neighbouring other submissions were received relating to these parish of Codnor to create a new two-member wards. Given the general support for our proposals Codnor & Waingroves ward. and the reasonable levels of electoral equality that would be attained in this part of the borough, we 46 In considering the electoral arrangements for confirm our draft recommendations in this area as Ripley, we concluded that it was appropriate to final. consider the town with the neighbouring urban areas of Codnor and Heanor & Loscoe. Ripley as a Heage & Ambergate, Ripley and town is slightly under-represented with seven Ripley & Marehay wards district councillors but is not sufficiently under- represented to warrant eight councillors. Similarly, 43 The town of Ripley is currently divided into the town of Heanor & Loscoe, which is discussed three borough wards and has an electorate of in more detail below, is marginally under- 15,708 which is forecast to increase to 16,106 by represented at present. Between them, the two 2002. The number of electors per councillor in the towns are entitled to an additional councillor, and two-member ward of Heage & Ambergate is it was for this reason that the Conservatives’ presently 8 per cent less than the borough average scheme for this area appeared to have most merit. (10 per cent in 2002). The three-member Ripley ward is currently under-represented, with 15 per 47 In our draft recommendations report we cent more electors per councillor than the average concluded that placing the two Ripley polling (16 per cent in 2002). The two-member Ripley & districts (RYW and RYZ) into a new Codnor & Marehay ward presently has a reasonable level of Waingroves ward would be appropriate in principle electoral equality, with 5 per cent more than the because it would enable the ‘extra’ councillor to be average number of electors per councillor (4 per given to this part of the district and would improve cent in 2002). electoral equality in the Ripley ward. It would also address a boundary anomaly where some electors 44 During Stage One, the Borough Council’s first who are to all intents and purposes part of Codnor preference was for no change to any of the wards of are presently within Ripley ward, and would enable Ripley. It stated that Heage & Ambergate ward, the parish of Codnor, presently split between two which is relatively rural in nature, is “significantly borough wards, to be united within one ward.

14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 48 However, we considered that it was possible to ward of Heanor West with an electorate of 4,806 is improve upon the Conservatives’ proposal by also under-represented, varying from the average modifying their proposed Codnor & Waingroves by 13 per cent both initially and in 2002. ward boundary to enable all the electors of Waingroves Road and Coope Street (880 electors) 52 During Stage One, the Borough Council to be transferred from the Ripley ward. This proposed relatively minor changes to this area, proposal would result in the modified three- suggesting transfers of electors from Heanor West member Ripley ward varying by 6 per cent from and Codnor wards into Heanor & Loscoe ward the average initially (7 per cent by 2002). An and from Heanor East to Heanor West ward. unchanged Ripley & Marehay ward would vary by However, the Council’s proposals would not 10 per cent initially (9 per cent by 2002) while an substantially improve electoral equality and, as unchanged Heage & Ambergate ward would vary described above in relation to Ripley, we formed by 4 per cent initially (6 per cent by 2002). the view that the combined area of Ripley, Codnor and Heanor was entitled to an additional councillor 49 During Stage Three, we received support for overall. our proposals in Ripley from the Borough Council, Derbyshire County Council, the West Derbyshire 53 Predominantly for these reasons, we built upon Conservative Association and a local resident. the Conservatives’ proposals in this area. We Ripley Town Council stated that it “could see the recommended that 880 electors from the logic” in transferring the Waingroves area out of Waingroves area of Ripley be transferred from the Ripley ward but did not agree with our proposal to Ripley borough ward and be placed in a ward with alter the town council wards. the whole of the parish of Codnor. The resultant two-member Codnor & Waingroves ward would 50 In view of the general support for our initially vary from the average number of electors proposals in Ripley we are confirming them as per councillor by 1 per cent (5 per cent by 2002). final recommendations. Ripley Town Council’s comments regarding the town council wards are 54 During Stage Three, our proposal to create a discussed at the end of this chapter (see page 21). two-member Codnor & Waingroves ward was For details of our proposed borough ward supported by the Borough Council, the County boundaries in Ripley please refer to the large map Council, the West Derbyshire Conservative inserted at the back of the report. Association, Ripley Town Council and a local Codnor, Heanor & Loscoe, Heanor resident. We did not receive any representations East and Heanor West wards opposing this proposal. In view of this support and of the good level of electoral equality that would be achieved, we therefore confirm our draft 51 The single-member Codnor ward comprises the Codnor parish ward of Codnor parish and has an recommendation as final. Details of this proposal electorate of 2,372. The number of electors per are shown on the large map inserted at the back of councillor is 12 per cent above the borough the report. average (8 per cent in 2002). There is presently a degree of electoral inequality within the three 55 In order to improve the present levels of wards of Heanor & Loscoe, although the town is electoral equality in the town of Heanor & Loscoe, very nearly correctly represented with six we built upon the proposals of the West Derbyshire councillors overall. The two-member ward named Conservative Association for a new two-member Heanor & Loscoe (which includes the Crosshill & Loscoe ward and revised two-member wards of East parish ward of Codnor parish) has an Heanor East and Heanor West. We put forward electorate of 3,827. The ward is currently over- alternative boundaries to the Conservatives in represented, varying from the borough average by order to secure further improved levels of electoral 10 per cent (13 per cent in 2002). The two- equality, resulting in proposed wards of Loscoe, member ward of Heanor East with an electorate of Heanor East and Heanor West varying from the 4,711 is presently under-represented, varying from borough average by 5 per cent, 2 per cent and 3 per the average number of electors per councillor by 11 cent respectively (1 per cent, 4 per cent and 3 per per cent (12 per cent in 2002). The two-member cent by 2002).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 15 56 During Stage Three the West Derbyshire of the borough, at present suffer from a significant Conservative Association supported our proposals degree of electoral inequality. The number of for the town of Heanor & Loscoe. However, the electors per councillor in each ward is 18 per cent Borough Council, Derbyshire County Council and above, 13 per cent below, 48 per cent above and 18 Heanor & Loscoe Town Council proposed two per cent above the borough average respectively three-member wards for the town, rather than (18 per cent, 16 per cent 45 per cent and 24 per three two-member wards. In addition, the cent in 2002). Borough Council put forward a second preference, for three two-member wards, but with alternative 60 During Stage One, the Borough Council and boundaries to those we put forward as draft the West Derbyshire Conservative Association recommendations. Heanor & Loscoe Town proposed an increase in representation for this area Council also proposed alternative town council as a whole from four to five members, although warding arrangements. they put forward differing warding arrangements. The Borough Council proposed that the parish of 57 The Borough Council’s proposal for three- Smalley, currently part of Shipley Park ward, be member wards would move away from the existing warded. The proposed North parish ward would pattern of two-member wards in Heanor & Loscoe be placed in a new three-member borough ward (which the Council supported the retention of in with the parishes of Kilburn, Denby and Horsley its Stage One submission). Under its Stage Three Woodhouse. The number of electors per councillor proposal the current Heanor West ward would be in this ward would have varied from the average by divided between the proposed Loscoe and Heanor 3 per cent (1 per cent in 2002). East wards. Given that under this proposal electoral equality would be broadly similar to our draft 61 The proposed South parish ward of Smalley recommendations, we examined it closely. The parish would form part of a modified single- proposed boundaries of the two wards did not member Shipley Park ward with the parishes of appear to improve on the draft recommendations Mapperley and Shipley. The number of electors per and there was no evidence submitted to justify the councillor would have varied from the borough creation of three-member wards in a town which average by 6 per cent initially (1 per cent in 2002). presently does not have that warding pattern. Also The single-member Holbrook & Horsley ward lacking in the Borough Council’s submission (and would remain unchanged, with the number of those of Derbyshire County Council and Heanor electors per councillor varying from the borough & Loscoe Town Council) were any arguments average by 9 per cent (12 per cent in 2002) under relating to community identities in the town. a 45-member council size.

58 This lack of evidence was also the case with the 62 We were persuaded, however, that we should Borough Council’s second preference for modified adopt the proposals of the West Derbyshire two-member wards: no substantive reasons were Conservative Association in this area. It proposed a given as to why we should move away from our three-member ward, comprising the parishes of draft recommendations. In view of this and of the Denby, Kilburn and Holbrook, in which the reasonable levels of electoral equality that our draft number of electors per councillor varied from the recommendations would provide, we confirm our borough average by 3 per cent (4 per cent in draft recommendations in Heanor & Loscoe as 2002). It also proposed a two-member ward final. The large map at the back of the report shows comprising the present Shipley Park ward plus details of our proposed boundaries in this area. the parishes of Horsley and Horsley Woodhouse. Heanor & Loscoe Town Council’s proposals for This ward would initially equal the average town council electoral arrangements are discussed number of electors per councillor, varying by 3 per at the end of this chapter (see page 20). cent by 2002.

Denby & Horsley Woodhouse, 63 In Stage Three we received a number of Holbrook & Horsley, Kilburn submissions in relation to this area. The West and Shipley Park wards Derbyshire Conservative Association and Kilburn Parish Council supported our proposals. However, 59 The four single-member wards of Denby & with the exception of Kilburn Parish Council, the Horsley Woodhouse, Holbrook & Horsley, local parish councils in this area were hostile to our Kilburn and Shipley Park, situated in the south-east proposals. The view generally held was that the

16 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND creation of relatively large wards (in terms of area) than 5 per cent from the borough average by 2002. could diminish the representational role of However, the County Council’s proposed ward of councillors. The Borough Council and Derbyshire Shipley Park and Denby Village would not, in County Council also opposed the draft our view, enhance community identities as Denby recommendations and put forward alternatives. Village appears to share little in common with the rest of the ward. Additionally, no details 64 The Borough Council’s alternative proposals of proposed parish ward boundaries (or consisted of an unchanged single-member consequential changes to parish council electoral Holbrook & Horsley ward, a new two-member arrangements) were submitted with the County ward consisting of the parishes of Kilburn and Council’s proposals. Horsley Woodhouse and a new two-member ward consisting of the parishes of Denby, Mapperley, 68 There is general agreement by all respondents Shipley and Smalley, although the Council ideally that this area as a whole merits five councillors preferred that this latter ward be subdivided into rather than the present four, but how these are single-member wards. Derbyshire County Council allocated is the difficult question: there appears to proposed that the parishes of Denby and Kilburn be no perfect solution for this part of the borough. both be warded to facilitate the creation of a two- On balance, and taking all relevant factors into member ward comprising Denby Village, Horsley account – the levels of electoral equality, Woodhouse and Shipley Park and a two-member community identities and the desirability of the Kilburn & Denby ward. A small part of Kilburn avoidance of unnecessarily warding parishes, parish (the ‘Lower Kilburn’ area) would be together with the views received during Stage added to a revised single-member Holbrook & Three, we remain of the view that our draft Horsley ward. recommendations for a three-member Kilburn, Denby & Holbrook ward and a two-member 65 The parish councils of Holbrook and Horsley Horsley & Shipley Park ward are the most supported the Borough Council’s proposal for no appropriate. We therefore confirm these draft change to the single-member Holbrook & Horsley recommendations as final. ward. However, they also supported, as a second preference, the County Council’s proposal to Belper East, North and South wards include the Lower Kilburn area within the ward, arguing that this would “even out the numerical 69 The town of Belper, which has an electorate of anomaly whilst keeping a geographical and 15,416 (projected to increase to 16,332 by 2002) historic unit”. is currently divided into three borough wards. The three-member Belper East ward is presently 66 We can see merit in the alternative proposals of considerably under-represented, with the number both the Borough Council and the County Council. of electors per councillor varying by 29 per cent The Borough Council’s proposals, while securing from the borough average (39 per cent in 2002). reasonable electoral equality in two wards, would The two-member Belper North and Belper South result in one ward (the unchanged Holbrook & wards are over-represented, with the number of Horsley ward) varying by 12 per cent from the electors per councillor varying from the borough borough average by 2002. In the Council’s average by 6 per cent and 25 per cent respectively proposed ward consisting of the parishes of Denby, (9 per cent and 26 per cent in 2002). Mapperley, Shipley and Smalley, community identities would not appear to be enhanced as the 70 During Stage One, the Borough Council, centres of population in the parish of Denby, for Belper Town Council and the Amber Valley and example, do not appear to share strong ties with the West Derbyshire Conservative Associations each remainder of the proposed ward. proposed an overall increase in representation for the town of Belper from seven to eight members. 67 The County Council’s proposals would involve However, differing schemes were proposed to us. the warding of two parishes, those of Kilburn and The Borough Council proposed a re-configuration Denby. Electoral equality would be similar to that of the existing wards to create four new two- attained under our draft recommendations: on the member borough wards, and an increase in town County Council’s own calculations all three of its councillors from 14 to 16. This was supported by proposed wards in this area would vary by no more Belper Town Council.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 17 71 In order to address the high levels of electoral 75 As detailed in paragraphs 25 and 26 above, in inequality in the current Belper East and Belper the absence of specific evidence being submitted by South wards, the Council proposed to create a new the West Derbyshire Conservative Association we two-member Belper Central ward by transferring remain content to accept the Borough Council’s electors from those wards. Belper South ward would electorate forecasts for the town of Belper as being also lose some electors to the existing Belper North the best available. In light of the broad support ward. Under the Council’s scheme the resultant two- received for our proposals, we wish to confirm our member Belper Central, East, North and South draft recommendations for the town of Belper as wards would vary from the average number of final. Proposals for town council electoral electors per councillor by 10 per cent, 9 per cent, 2 arrangements are discussed at the end of this per cent and 4 per cent respectively (6 per cent, 1 per chapter (see page 20). cent, 1 per cent and 2 per cent in 2002). Alport, Duffield and South West 72 The Conservative Associations proposed six new Parishes wards single-member wards and a new two-member ward for the Whitemoors area of the town (currently part 76 The single-member Alport ward with an of Belper East ward). The proposals endeavoured to electorate of 2,049 comprises the parishes of create wards, we were informed, based on Alderwasley, Ashleyhay, Dethick Lea & Holloway, identifiable areas of the town and which used Hazelwood, Idridgehay & Alton and Shottle & boundaries such as the river Derwent and main Postern. The number of electors per councillor roads. Under this proposal none of the six single- varies from the borough average by 4 per cent (5 member wards would exceed 10 per cent from the per cent in 2002). The two-member Duffield average either initially or by 2002. However, the ward, which comprises the parish of the same two-member Whitemoor ward would be name, has an electorate of 3,705. The number of substantially over-represented initially by 27 per cent, electors per councillor currently varies from the although the Associations argued that the projected borough average by 13 per cent (14 per cent in electorate for this area would result in the two- 2002). The single-member South West Parishes member ward varying from the average number of ward with an electorate of 2,080 comprises the electors per councillor by only 5 per cent by 2002. parishes of Kedleston, Kirk Langley, Mackworth, Quarndon, Ravensdale Park, Turnditch, Weston 73 While we accepted that the alternative Underwood and Windley. The number of electors proposals would produce similarly good levels of per councillor currently varies from the borough electoral equality, the Associations’ proposals average by 2 per cent (3 per cent in 2002). moved away from the established pattern of multi- member wards in the town. We were therefore 77 During Stage One the Borough Council content in principle to accept the proposals for proposed no change to the electoral arrangements multi-member wards in Belper, but invited of all three wards. These proposals received comment on the desirability or otherwise of single- support from Duffield Parish Council and the and multi-member wards in the town. We believed Amber Valley and West Derbyshire Conservative that further improvement could be made to the Associations. The Borough Council had considered Council’s scheme by a transfer of 114 electors from a proposal to transfer the parish of Hazelwood its proposed Belper North ward to its proposed from Alport ward to Duffield ward, but electoral Belper Central ward. This would result in no ward equality would not have been improved. exceeding 9 per cent from the average initially, and Additionally, as Duffield ward shares a boundary no more than 4 per cent by 2002. with Derby City, alternative options in this area were limited. 74 During Stage Three, the Borough Council, Belper Town Council and a local resident supported our 78 With a 45-member council size, the levels of proposals for the town of Belper. The West Derbyshire electoral equality in the single-member wards of Conservative Association, while not directly Alport and South West Parishes would be among commenting on the proposed warding pattern for the best in the borough (neither ward varying by Belper, reiterated its concerns over the forecast more than 2 per cent from the average either initially electorate growth statistics for the existing Belper East or by 2002). The two-member Duffield ward would ward. It also contended that each of our four proposed vary by 9 per cent (10 per cent in 2002). Given the town council wards should be represented by three configuration of parishes in this area and the levels (rather than four) town councillors. of electoral equality that would result, we

18 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND were content to propose no change to these three Borough Council and the County Council wards. endorsed this proposal; we therefore wish to confirm our draft recommendation as final. 79 During Stage Three our proposals for no change to the wards of Alport, Duffield and South West Conclusions Parishes were supported by the Borough Council,

Derbyshire County Council and the West 82 Having considered carefully all the representations Derbyshire Conservative Association. A local and evidence received in response to our resident supported our recommendation for consultation report, we have decided to endorse Duffield ward but suggested an alternative for our draft recommendations in their entirety. We Alport ward, proposing that the Wheatcroft area of conclude that, in Amber Valley: Crich parish be added to it. However, this proposal would have an adverse affect on the levels of (a) there should be an increase in council size from electoral equality in both the Crich and the Alport 43 to 45; wards. As discussed earlier in this chapter, we have recommended no change to the existing Crich ward. (b) there should be 23 wards, two less than at present;

80 Given the general support for our proposals for (c) the boundaries of 14 of the existing wards no change to the existing wards of Alport, Duffield should be modified; and South West Parishes and the reasonable levels (d) elections should continue to take place by of electoral equality that would be attained in this thirds. part of the borough, we wish to confirm our draft recommendations for these three wards as final. 83 Figure 3 (below) shows the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality, comparing Electoral Cycle them with the current arrangements, based on 1997 and 2002 electorate figures. 81 During Stage One, the Borough Council supported the continuation of elections by thirds. 84 As Figure 3 shows, our recommendations No other representations were received on this would result in a reduction in the number of wards issue, so we did not propose at that stage to with an electoral variance of more than 10 per cent recommend any change. At Stage Three the from 14 to none. By 2002 only one ward is forecast

Figure 3: Comparison of Current and Recommended Electoral Arrangements

1997 electorate 2002 forecast electorate Current Final Current Final arrangements recommendations arrangements recommendations

Number of councillors 43 45 43 45

Number of wards 25 23 25 23

Average number of electors 2,126 2,032 2,191 2,094 per councillor

Number of wards with a 14 0 16 1 variance more than 10 per cent from the average

Number of wards with a 4 0 5 0 variance more than 20 per cent from the average

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 19 to vary by more than 10 per cent from the average (the Wingfield ward at 11 per cent). We conclude Final Recommendation that our recommendations would best meet the The town of Belper should comprise four need for electoral equality, having regard to the town wards and 16 town councillors. A statutory criteria. revised Belper Central town ward, represented by four town councillors, should be created and be coterminous with Final Recommendation the proposed borough council ward of the Amber Valley Borough Council should same name. A new Belper East town ward, comprise 45 councillors serving 23 wards, represented by four town councillors, as detailed and named in Figures 1 and 4, should be created and be coterminous with and illustrated in Appendix A and the large the proposed borough council ward of the map inserted at the back of this report. same name. A new Belper North town The Council should continue to be elected ward, represented by four town councillors, by thirds. should be created and be coterminous with the proposed borough council ward of the same name. A new Belper South town ward, Parish and Town Council represented by four town councillors, should be created and be coterminous with Electoral Arrangements the proposed borough council ward of the same name. Details of our proposed 85 In undertaking reviews of electoral boundaries are shown on the large map arrangements, we are required to comply as far inserted at the back of this report. as is reasonably practicable with the provisions set out in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act. The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be 87 During Stage One we proposed to increase the divided between different borough wards, it number of town councillors in the town of Heanor must also be divided into parish wards, so that & Loscoe, from 20 to 21. The proposed borough each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward council wards of Heanor East, Heanor West and of the borough. Accordingly, we propose a Loscoe would each be represented by seven town number of consequential parish ward changes, as councillors. During Stage Three the Borough detailed below. Council supported our proposal to increase the number of town councillors by one. Heanor & 86 In our draft recommendations report, we Loscoe Town Council proposed three alternative proposed to increase the number of town town council warding schemes, two of which councillors from 14 to 16 in the town of Belper. would result in 20 town councillors and one 21 The proposed borough council wards of Belper councillors. However, in the light of our final Central, Belper East, Belper North and Belper recommendations for the borough council warding South would each be represented by four town arrangements, we are confirming our draft councillors. During Stage Three, this proposal was recommendations as final. supported by Belper Town Council but opposed by the West Derbyshire Conservative Association, which contended that the town should be Final Recommendation represented by 12 town councillors. However, having confirmed our draft recommendations for The town of Heanor & Loscoe should borough council wards in the town as final, we see comprise three town wards and 21 town no substantive reason to alter our proposals for councillors. A revised Heanor East town town council electoral arrangements and remain of ward, represented by seven town councillors, the view that the town should be represented by 16 should be created and be coterminous with town councillors. the proposed borough council ward of the

20 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 89 During Stage One we received a proposal from same name. A revised Heanor West town Crich Parish Council to create a parish ward for ward, represented by seven town councillors, the area of Whatstandwell, to be represented should be created and be coterminous with by two parish councillors. The Borough the proposed borough council ward of the Council supported this recommendation during same name. A new Loscoe town ward, Stage Three, and we therefore confirm this represented by seven town councillors, proposal as final. should be created and be coterminous with the proposed borough council ward of the same name. Details of our proposed Final Recommendation boundaries are shown on the large map We propose that a new Whatstandwell parish inserted at the back of this report. ward be created, and that the parish ward should be represented by two parish councillors. A revised Crich parish ward 88 During Stage One we proposed that in the would in future be represented by seven town of Ripley the town wards of East and parish councillors. Fritchley parish ward Waingroves should be modified to reflect the would remain unchanged and continue to be proposed borough council ward boundary in this represented by three parish councillors. area. All other town wards would remain Details are shown on Map A2 in Appendix A. unchanged, and Ripley Town Council would remain represented by 21 town councillors. During Stage Three, Ripley Town Council, while 90 In our draft recommendations report we also supporting the proposed borough warding proposed no change to the electoral cycle of parish and proposals, stated that it could see no reason to town councils in the borough. No comments were modify the town council’s present warding received on this proposal during Stage Three, and we arrangements. Paragraph 85 above sets out our therefore propose to confirm this proposal as final. reasons. In light of our final recommendation for the borough council ward of Codnor & Waingroves, we are confirming our draft Final Recommendation recommendation as final. Elections for parish and town councils should continue to be held at the same time Final Recommendation as elections for the Borough Council. The town ward of Waingroves should be modified such that it lies entirely within the proposed borough council ward of Codnor & Waingroves. The town ward of East should be expanded to include the area presently in the Waingroves town ward which is proposed to remain within the Ripley borough council ward. The revised Waingroves town ward should be represented by one town councillor while the revised East town ward should be represented by five town councillors. All other Ripley town council wards should remain unchanged. Details of our proposed boundary change are shown on Map A3 in Appendix A.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 21 Figure 4: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Amber Valley

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Aldercar 2 3,838 1,919 -6 3,840 1,920 -8

2 Alfreton 3 6,360 2,120 4 6,428 2,143 2

3 Alport 1 2,049 2,049 1 2,088 2,088 0

4 Belper Central 2 3,776 1,888 -7 4,044 2,022 -3

5 Belper East 2 3,707 1,854 -9 4,162 2,081 -1

6 Belper North 2 4,040 2,020 -1 4,031 2,016 -4

7 Belper South 2 3,893 1,947 -4 4,095 2,048 -2

8 Codnor & Waingroves 2 4,015 2,008 -1 3,999 2,000 -5

9 Crich 1 1,831 1,831 -10 1,943 1,943 -7

10 Duffield 2 3,705 1,853 -9 3,774 1,887 -10

11 Heage & Ambergate 2 3,907 1,954 -4 3,927 1,964 -6

12 Heanor East 2 4,144 2,072 2 4,335 2,168 4

13 Heanor West 2 4,189 2,095 3 4,322 2,161 3

14 Horsley & 2 4,067 2,034 0 4,305 2,153 3 Shipley Park

15 Kilburn, Denby 3 5,939 1,980 -3 6,015 2,005 -4 & Holbrook

16 Loscoe 2 4,248 2,124 5 4,230 2,115 1

17 Riddings 2 4,321 2,161 6 4,511 2,256 8

18 Ripley 3 6,440 2,147 6 6,738 2,246 7

19 Ripley & Marehay 2 4,481 2,241 10 4,561 2,281 9

20 Somercotes 2 4,392 2,196 8 4,534 2,267 8

22 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 4 (continued): The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Amber Valley

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

21 South West Parishes 1 2,080 2,080 2 2,120 2,120 1

22 Swanwick 2 4,171 2,086 3 4,369 2,185 4

23 Wingfield 1 1,840 1,840 -9 1,856 1,856 -11

Totals 45 91,433 — — 94,227 — —

Averages — — 2,032 — — 2,094 —

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 23 Map 2: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Amber Valley

24 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 6. NEXT STEPS

91 Having completed our review of electoral arrangements in Amber Valley and submitted our final recommendations to the Secretary of State, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the Local Government Act 1992.

92 It now falls to the Secretary of State to decide whether to give effect to our recommendations, with or without modification, and to implement them by means of an order. Such an order will not be made earlier than six weeks from the date that our recommendations are submitted to the Secretary of State.

93 All further correspondence concerning our recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to:

The Secretary of State Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Local Government Review Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 25 26 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND APPENDIX A

Final Recommendations for Amber Valley: Detailed Mapping

The following maps illustrate the Commission’s proposed ward boundaries for the Amber Valley area.

Map A1 illustrates, in outline form, the proposed ward boundaries within the borough and indicates the areas which are shown in more detail on Maps A2, A3 and the large map inserted at the back of the report.

Map A2 illustrates the proposed parish warding arrangements for the parish of Crich.

Map A3 illustrates the proposed parish ward boundary change within Ripley.

The large map inserted in the back of the report illustrates the Commission’s proposed ward boundaries within the towns of Codnor, Ripley and Heanor & Loscoe.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 27 Map A1: Final Recommendations for Amber Valley: Key Map

28 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Map A2: Proposed Parish Warding Arrangements for the Parish of Crich

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 29 Map A3: Proposed Parish Ward Boundary Change Within the Town of Ripley

30 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND